If the article is accurate as a portrait of rural towns ( I can't tell), it still doesn't draw a strong link to Trump. They just say, if you're angry you might do anything. Even vote for the godless guy from Manhattan, if he's on your side. Thing is, if you would do anything, it does't tell much about this thing you actually did.

It leaves the obvious question: if there is such a big divide between city and country, and the key demographic is angry small town people looking for an asshole (their word) outsider to rally behind. Shouldn't the winning candidate be a small town asshole?

Out of the over dozen candidates in the primaries, there were only two candidates against the status quo. They were both outsiders that did much much better than predicted and the constant media attacks against them served more to galvanize their support than to convince undecided voters to vote against them. That much should be self-evident to anyone who followed the election, surely?

eran_rathan wrote:Hey, guess what, some of us grew up there. And some of us still live there. And we get by just fine without shitting on minorities, even (gasp) in one of the whitest states in the union.

CorruptUser wrote:I understand your pain, and if Trump really does turn into Godwin's and the 'deportation camps' open up, please let me know if you need to hide in my attic.

I wonder where you're willing to draw the line of accepting that his policies are going to be very bad.

Ben Carson has been tapped for Secretary of Education. An oil tycoon for energy somethingsomething. A climate denier for the EPA transition.

Just... when do you, and other Trump supporters, recognize that these are going to be rough times for progress and modernity. And all those poor white rural dwelling Americans... how are THEY going to be served from this?

... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

CorruptUser wrote:I understand your pain, and if Trump really does turn into Godwin's and the 'deportation camps' open up, please let me know if you need to hide in my attic.

I wonder where you're willing to draw the line of accepting that his policies are going to be very bad.

Ben Carson has been tapped for Secretary of Education. An oil tycoon for energy somethingsomething. A climate denier for the EPA transition.

Just... when do you, and other Trump supporters, recognize that these are going to be rough times for progress and modernity. And all those poor white rural dwelling Americans... how are THEY going to be served from this?

I was trying to find answers rather than digging my head in the sand and insisting that "oh, it's just that America is so racist". It's that partisan attitude, that you are right and everyone else who disagrees with you ever so slightly is a monster, that alienated so many people and pushed them into the lobster arms of Trump.

Zamfir wrote:It leaves the obvious question: if there is such a big divide between city and country, and the key demographic is angry small town people looking for an asshole (their word) outsider to rally behind. Shouldn't the winning candidate be a small town asshole?

The US is big, you surely have one or two of those?

If you assume they are also right in that small town Americans are at the bottom of the cultural pecking order, then this was never an option. The small town asshole would be mocked into oblivion before making it big.

If the article is accurate as a portrait of rural towns ( I can't tell), it still doesn't draw a strong link to Trump. They just say, if you're angry you might do anything. Even vote for the godless guy from Manhattan, if he's on your side. Thing is, if you would do anything, it does't tell much about this thing you actually did.

It leaves the obvious question: if there is such a big divide between city and country, and the key demographic is angry small town people looking for an asshole (their word) outsider to rally behind. Shouldn't the winning candidate be a small town asshole?

The US is big, you surely have one or two of those?

While that's true, they weren't up for election. And much to our chagrin, Trump speaks the language of the masses, and therefore they identify with him. In many respects, he's like Bush Jr, except with far less experience.

morriswalters wrote:People are all about Democracy, until it jumps up and smacks them in the mouth. If the Democrats who stayed home this election had gotten out and voted, then Trump, would in all likelihood, not be President. Before you blame everybody else you had better look closer to home and ask yourself, given the clear nature of the choices, why was turnout down? Blame the other guy if it suits you, but you've got two years to put the party in a position to stop Trump, assuming he can be stopped. And blaming Trump voters is whining, not fixing the problem.

Yeah, those damn New Zealanders, South Africans, Mongolians, Peruvians and Algerians. If only they'd done a better job of defending Warsaw, those Jews wouldn't have been murdered. Time to quit whining about the Nazis and accept some responsibility for your own inaction, guys.

And honestly, these jackholes make me glad that Trump won. Because fuck violent protesters.

THIS violent behavior was spurred on by the liberals and encouraged. Trump has no connection to this group, and indeed, it is his constant comparison to Hitler that has done this. Stephen Colbert and John Stewart do not cover this crap nor do they make comedy jokes about this shit.

-------------

Staging a protest immediately after an election is also the height of stupidity. Its too late to change things now people. We've got to try again in four years... and next time, we need to build a larger coalition. Good job fucking up the moral high ground: there was a point yesterday when Muslims / Hispanics were getting bullied by white supremacists. But now the liberal jackasses have come out in full force and are causing actual property damage now.

Want to know why nobody is listening to your protests anymore? Because of that shit. Protesting is now seen to be the scumbags of the earth. We all accept your right to assembly and voice your opinion, but that doesn't mean the masses have to listen to you.

And I recognize that the violent behavior is basically limited to the Pacific West Coast: there were peaceful protests all around the country. But that's not what the media will focus on, nor what people's attention will be on. It is the worst of the protesters that create the image for all of them.

How about the jackholes like the ones who have been attacking my friends' kids for being brown or vandalizing their cars for having a Bernie bumper sticker? I'm not intending to excuse the violent protestors, but there has been some seriously terrible post-election behavior from the worst parts of both sides of the divide.

Okay, that's it. People who dislike Trump and people who dislike Trump supporters are, clearly, the lowest scum on this planet. In view of this terrible crime, we must simply overlook these trivial minor incidents: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

Yeah, writing on people's doors and windows and cars, calling people niggers, sand-niggers, wops, cunts and bitches, telling people to hang themselves, taking people's purses, money and cars, putting "whites only" signs on drinking fountains, telling people to leave the country, grabbing people in the street and refusing to let go, blocking kids from attending school, hanging brown-skinned dolls from little nooses and all that trivial shit is NOTHING on breaking a car windscreen.

Okay, that's it. People who dislike Trump and people who dislike Trump supporters are, clearly, the lowest scum on this planet. In view of this terrible crime, we must simply overlook these trivial minor incidents: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

Yeah, writing on people's doors and windows and cars, calling people niggers, sand-niggers, wops, cunts and bitches, telling people to hang themselves, taking people's purses, money and cars, putting "whites only" signs on drinking fountains, telling people to leave the country, grabbing people in the street and refusing to let go, blocking kids from attending school, hanging brown-skinned dolls from little nooses and all that trivial shit is NOTHING on breaking a car windscreen.

KnightExemplar wrote:Because your friend's car was vandalized doesn't mean that it was right for the other protesters to destroy other cars.

Did I say it was? My objection isn't to the idea that the violent protesters are in the wrong - it's to the idea that they would make you glad that Trump won. I mean, it would be stupid in general, but it seems particularly ridiculous given the way the worst of Trump's supporters are behaving.

KnightExemplar wrote:Because your friend's car was vandalized doesn't mean that it was right for the other protesters to destroy other cars.

Did I say it was? My objection isn't to the idea that the violent protesters are in the wrong - it's to the idea that they would make you glad that Trump won. I mean, it would be stupid in general, but it seems particularly ridiculous given the way the worst of Trump's supporters are behaving.

I haven't seen a group of Trump supporters pull a Hillary Supporter out of their car yet and beat them. So yeah, I'm going to say that Trump supporters have the moral high ground right now.

KnightExemplar wrote:So yeah, I'm going to say that Trump supporters have the moral high ground right now.

What?

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

KnightExemplar wrote:Because your friend's car was vandalized doesn't mean that it was right for the other protesters to destroy other cars.

Did I say it was? My objection isn't to the idea that the violent protesters are in the wrong - it's to the idea that they would make you glad that Trump won. I mean, it would be stupid in general, but it seems particularly ridiculous given the way the worst of Trump's supporters are behaving.

I haven't seen a group of Trump supporters pull a Hillary Supporter out of their car yet and beat them. So yeah, I'm going to say that Trump supporters have the moral high ground right now.

Erm, plenty of people have been assaulted by Trump supporters in the last few days. I'm not sure how many involved extracting the victim from a car first, but I'm not sure it's relevant.

BTW: The Immigrant who owned a Balitmore beer and wine store still doesn't have her business after it was burned down by Baltimore protesters during the whole Freddy Grey incident.

Yes, bullying is wrong and psychologically damaging. But the psychological damage from losing a business you've run for 20 years is far greater, and the scars continue to this day. The financial damage literally ruins people for the rest of their lives. So there is absolutely no defense for the violent protesters who are fucking things up right now.

Period.

CorruptUser wrote:

Liri wrote:

KnightExemplar wrote:So yeah, I'm going to say that Trump supporters have the moral high ground right now.

What?

The high ground is currently located somewhere in the Mariana Trench, and without any sunlight it's hard to tell who is higher than whom.

Okay, okay, only one of them is in that trench, and he won.

Agreed. Both sides are acting like jackasses for sure. But which side will Stephen Colbert make fun of tonight? And which side will he ignore? Tune in at 11:30 on CBS tonight to find out.

Sableagle wrote:Yeah, those damn New Zealanders, South Africans, Mongolians, Peruvians and Algerians. If only they'd done a better job of defending Warsaw, those Jews wouldn't have been murdered. Time to quit whining about the Nazis and accept some responsibility for your own inaction, guys.

This isn't Poland in the 30's. This was an American Presidential election. In two years there will be another National election where Trump can be stymied. But whining is more fun I suppose. Winning elections require hard work and planning.

It's ironic that this is what Trump wanted his people to do in some fashion or the other if he lost. Don't you think? Oh yeah, and the election was rigged. Wasn't it? Isn't that what he said?

I've followed this thread from literallypage one, and you've followed this thread from very early on. I dare you to find me giving one ounce of Trump support before the election.

I can take it if you were new to this thread or this conversation. But come on dude, you should know where I stand on this Trump thing.

-----

Here's the facts: America has spoken. They want Trump to be President. And as Clinton said in her concession speech: he deserves our hope and optimism during the transition. We will criticize and check Trump every step of the way to ensure he doesn't go out of line of course, but he is our President-elect now.

So yes, for the sake of this country, lets ensure that the peaceful transition of power continues peacefully. As it has in every election (sans the Civil War). So yes, that means now, Trump needs our support, whether we like it or not. You know what would be more ironic than your claim?

That Clinton Supporters would be the ones to not concede the election, despite much criticism about Trump not being able to do so before the election. People claimed that Trump supporters would riot if Trump lost the election. Guess what? Its the Clinton supporters who are rioting right now.

KnightExemplar wrote:I can take it if you were new to this thread or this conversation. But come on dude, you should know where I stand on this Trump thing.

Yes, your a rationalist, so am I. I was simply pointing out some irony and using you for a springboard. I know you aren't a Trump supporter. I sorry if it came off that way.

NP then. I think I see what you're going for now.

BTW: Yes, Trump winning is stressing me out too. Yall are not alone in this. But the best path forward is still clear in my mind. We lick our wounds, give Trump a chance for these next two years, and win back Congress in 2018. If that fails to work, win back the Presidency in 2020. That's a lot of time to prepare and grow a coalition.

I'm willing to start over with Trump, if only because that's pretty much the only option we have; approach him with as few preconceptions as possible and hope he'll make a good president.

I'm less willing to start over with Trump supporters. I want to know how they justify voting for a man who's said the things he's said, and expressed the values he's expressed. Did a lot of them just not believe it? Did they think he was just lying? Are these values that they themselves hold? If someone supports Trump, I want to know how you got passed the hurdle of voting for a man who expressed his intent to target the families of terrorists -- probably committed multiple accounts of sexual assault -- thought it was okay to peek in on naked teenage girls (some of whom were underage, btw) -- committed multiple affairs -- ruined countless businesses, stiffed contractors, described Mexican immigrants as "rapists"...

I need some sort of explanation, here. Maybe you weren't paying attention; maybe you thought the media was lying? Okay; I can at least understand that. But if you knew these things and still voted for the man, I can't see how values matter to you. That makes me pretty afraid of you. I'd rather not be, but what other explanation -- besides ignorance -- is there?

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm willing to start over with Trump, if only because that's pretty much the only option we have; approach him with as few preconceptions as possible and hope he'll make a good president.

I'm less willing to start over with Trump supporters.

I'm in the opposite situation. My optimism for Trump is mostly because I'm forced to be optimistic: there's no other path forward aside from hoping for the best in the short term. But I'm not stupid, I fully expect Trump to be the same jackass he was during the election. He has shown his true colors and Trump isn't going to change very much.

But with Trump supporters, I shit you not, a huge number of them (hell, the majority even) felt like Paul Ryan and McConnell are going to hold back Trump's insane claims. They want a chaos agent to fuck up Washington and demonstrate their anger at the system... but trust that there are enough adults in Washington to prevent things from completely collapsing. This was a vote of anger and not necessarily a vote of agreement.

In essence, Trump supporters were the same as "Meteor 2016: Just end it already". Trump will hurt Washington Politicians, and that's all they really wanted.

As I stated earlier, I can only think of two Trump supporters I know of who'd I'd call racist. Everyone else who leaned Trump are approaching from an anti-establishment perspective, very similar to the feelings of the 2008 rise of Obama.

Trump himself has proven himself to be a bigoted racist asshole, and winning the election doesn't change that fact. But I do not extend that particular criticism to his supporters.

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm willing to start over with Trump, if only because that's pretty much the only option we have; approach him with as few preconceptions as possible and hope he'll make a good president.

I'm less willing to start over with Trump supporters. I want to know how they justify voting for a man who's said the things he's said, and expressed the values he's expressed. Did a lot of them just not believe it? Did they think he was just lying? Are these values that they themselves hold? If someone supports Trump, I want to know how you got passed the hurdle of voting for a man who expressed his intent to target the families of terrorists -- probably committed multiple accounts of sexual assault -- thought it was okay to peek in on naked teenage girls (some of whom were underage, btw) -- committed multiple affairs -- ruined countless businesses, stiffed contractors, described Mexican immigrants as "rapists"...

I need some sort of explanation, here. Maybe you weren't paying attention; maybe you thought the media was lying? Okay; I can at least understand that. But if you knew these things and still voted for the man, I can't see how values matter to you. That makes me pretty afraid of you. I'd rather not be, but what other explanation -- besides ignorance -- is there?

Trump is only one man, his biggest decisions are who he installs for appointments, and guess what: they're all the same awful people, Roger Ailes, newt Gingrich, ben Carson, etc etc. Is Christie still a moderate? With all of Trump's honeyed words, how does that get translated when it's through his appointed cabinet members that policy is executed. Maybe Trump fights on infrastructure, maybe he was lying the whole time. I'm expecting an generic Republican out of Trump, with a wild card of what happens if he doesn't get his way.

@The Great Hippo: A refrain that I've heard from Trump supporters is, "The media takes him literally, but not seriously; we take him seriously, but not literally." Many of them view him as an irl shitposter and relish it; he gives vent to their frustrations in a hyperbolic way and then, hopefully, refines or moderates his positions later. "Taking out terrorists' families" evolves into merely penalizing them financially; the Muslim ban evolves into a freeze on immigration from countries with active terrorist threats. Trump supporters despise the media (as does much of the left, for different but overlapping reasons), and the way he antagonizes it is like catnip for them. They dismissed Politifact-style fact checking as mere petty nitpicking, and the overwhelming chorus of anti-Trump commentators and celebrities – especially toward the end – just reinforced their belief that he's the champion of the working man against the establishment.

Regarding the sex stuff: they'd respond, "He may be an asshole, but he's our asshole" (David Wong drew an analogy with the character of Tony Stark), they'd point out that the worst accusation against him – that he raped a 13-year-old girl – was always sketchy and has now been dropped, and they'd argue that Bill Clinton is guilty of the same or worse – and Hillary too, by virtue of having defended him.

Wonderbolt wrote:I sure hope the democratic party takes up a different attitude from yours in a month if they ever hope to win another election.

I'm not a Democrat; I'm an independent who would like to understand Trump supporters.

But if you think trying to understand Trump supporters is the wrong direction for the Democrats to take -- well, that's your (absurd) opinion.

You don't have to be so passive-aggressive about it, and I don't personally care whether you're a Democrat or not, I'm just saying that bugging all those supporters about how racist they must be isn't going to win them any elections. It just reinforces the smug-complex a lot of people already feel towards rural white voters for being so much less educated, etc.

It wouldn't matter now if there ended up being a hundred violent pro-Trump incidents to every one anti-Trump attack. This one is on video and it confirms every single stereotype white rural people have of black people in the city.

I say that as a Clinton supporter who grew up in the rural red part of a blue state. That video is going to be circulated in email forwards among boomers for years.

I'd encourage people to read that Cracked article by the way. I can absolutely vouch for it's accuracy.

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm willing to start over with Trump, if only because that's pretty much the only option we have; approach him with as few preconceptions as possible and hope he'll make a good president.

I'm less willing to start over with Trump supporters. I want to know how they justify voting for a man who's said the things he's said, and expressed the values he's expressed. Did a lot of them just not believe it? Did they think he was just lying? Are these values that they themselves hold? If someone supports Trump, I want to know how you got passed the hurdle of voting for a man who expressed his intent to target the families of terrorists -- probably committed multiple accounts of sexual assault -- thought it was okay to peek in on naked teenage girls (some of whom were underage, btw) -- committed multiple affairs -- ruined countless businesses, stiffed contractors, described Mexican immigrants as "rapists"...

I need some sort of explanation, here. Maybe you weren't paying attention; maybe you thought the media was lying? Okay; I can at least understand that. But if you knew these things and still voted for the man, I can't see how values matter to you. That makes me pretty afraid of you. I'd rather not be, but what other explanation -- besides ignorance -- is there?

A hypothetical Trump supporter in an alternate reality where Clinton won wrote:I'm willing to start over with Clinton, if only because that's pretty much the only option we have; approach her with as few preconceptions as possible and hope she'll make a good president.

I'm less willing to start over with Clinton supporters. I want to know how they justify voting for the most corrupt presidential candidate in US history. Did a lot of them just not believe it? Did they think the emails were fabricated, and that she would somehow not have been a puppet of her donors? Are these values that they themselves hold? If someone supports Clinton, I want to know how you got past the hurdle of voting for a woman who expressed her intent to enforce a no-fly-zone in Syria despite being told this would result in a war with Russia.

I need some sort of explanation, here. Maybe you weren't paying attention; maybe you thought the media was lying? Okay; I can at least understand that. But if you knew these things and still voted for the woman, I can't see how values matter to you. That makes me pretty afraid of you. I'd rather not be, but what other explanation -- besides ignorance -- is there?

As has been said several times, there were no good options here. At least when Trump said outrageous things, there's the hope that it was just heat-of-the-moment campaign rhetoric. And that even if he had the will to do any of the things you mentioned, the rest of the government around him would restrain him. They did a pretty good job at frustrating Obama's ambitions, so they can be expected to do the same to Trump. With Clinton, there was no hope that she could ever be anything more than an avatar of established corporate interests.

I'm not saying Trump was the best choice. But I can at least understand and sympathise with people who preferred him over Clinton.

It wouldn't matter now if there ended up being a hundred violent pro-Trump incidents to every one anti-Trump attack. This one is on video and it confirms every single stereotype white rural people have of black people in the city.

I say that as a Clinton supporter who grew up in the rural red part of a blue state. That video is going to be circulated in email forwards among boomers for years.

I'd encourage people to read that Cracked article by the way. I can absolutely vouch for it's accuracy.

Its really a shame though, because of how large this country is and how diverse things are.

I'm not surprised that the video there was filmed in the Michigan region for example. I'm not surprised that violent protesters march on the Pacific West Coast. What a lot of people don't realize is that these events coincide with a specific local culture that's difficult to understand unless you've actually visited that region and talked to people from there.

Similarly, people see cops kill a black person with a chokehold in and around Staten island, then the Jury gives that cop a 100% free pass entirely. Without understanding the culture of New York City (and specifically Staten Island), you simply aren't going to understand the culture. And that culture does not apply to the cops in other parts of this country. Even Baltimore cops act differently than Staten Island cops.

And yet, when these events happen, they turn into examples of other camps. Its all too easy to generalize and forget about local differences in culture. The USA is a very large, very diverse place. It is unfair to generalize. I do realize that few people here power over the jackass Black Bloc violent protesters in the Pacific West Coast, but for better or for worse... that violence will be assigned to the liberal camp in general. Just as any action of any officer will be assigned to the Police in general.